April 9, 2007

MINUTES OF SPECIAL BOARD MEETING

TRUSTEES OFBARTONHILLSVILLAGE

April 9, 2007

A special meeting of the Trustees was
called by President Laporte for the purpose of considering the response of
the Barton Hills Maintenance Corporation Board of Directors to the proposal
regarding land for municipal buildings, and to hear the report and
recommendations of theVillageAdministrationCenterproject. The meeting was called to order by Ms.
Laporte at6:04 PMat the Village Hall

Mr. Lindstrom distributed a written
report, referring first to the objectives of the VAC Committee and asking if
the Trustees are still committed to the objectives for the
project.

MotionMr. Wilkes moved that the Objectives for
theVillageAdministrationCentercommittee be reaffirmed, with the clarification
that “accessible” be added to No. 1 to indicate that the project will
conform to state law regarding handicap accessibility. Mr. Butterwick
seconded; the motion carried. The objectives are:

Develop a cost
effective plan to:

1. Provide adequate
accessible working space for the administration of the

Village of Barton
Hills

2. Provide adequate
storage to satisfy the state and federal legal requirements

for record
storage

Ensure the plan for
theAdministrationCenteris coordinated with other
potential plans

for building
construction by the Village of Barton Hills

Make recommendations
to the Village of Barton Hills Board of Trustees and, ultimately,

to the residents of
the Village in an open forum.

Discussion then focused on the
suggested “Process for Achieving a Consensus on the Exterior Design Theme
for the Building.” It was acknowledged that there will be no one design that
everyone is happy with, so a process is needed to evaluate and prioritize
various aspects until a consensus can be reached that can be supported 100%
by both Boards and presented to the community with enthusiasm. Mr. Lindstrom
suggested a three-step approach whereby the VAC Committee develops
priorities for the design, works with an architect to determine design
options and develops alternatives to be presented to the Board for
discussion. He added that the advice of an architect is needed because the
committee and Board do not have extensive knowledge and experience necessary
to be able to make informed decisions; further that the committee would like
to continue work with architect Ed Wier on this part of the
project.

The Trustees offered the following
comments concerning the steps of the process.

1) Cost Effective (high
priority)

--Mindful of the financial cap in
place, money must be spent wisely.

--We need to determine how long we
expect the building to last, and how much it will take to construct that
kind of building. (50 years was suggested)

--Low maintenance over the life of the
building is important and cost effective in the long run.

--Building a good foundation now can
offer options for adding on or renovating in the future.

--A utilitarian building now could be
updated at a later time.

2) Type of Siding Material (high
priority)

--Soft colored brick would fit with the
site.

--The siding should be handsome and
interesting; brick is not the only choice, although it is low
maintenance.

--Wood must be above ground level to
protect from termites.

3) Roof (high priority)

--Choice of materials should be
considered, although asphalt shingles are probably the most cost
effective.

--The details of the roof are not as
high priority as the materials used.

--Green practices are noted as “must be
cost effective”; this is true of the other elements also.

--We can’t be committed to “green at
all costs” but we can certainly incorporate some elements of environmentally
friendly construction.

--Does the architect have any
experience in green building practices?

--The focus is on energy
efficiency—where you get the energy from and how you use it. Low flush
toilets may be a small item since there won’t be a lot of use, but proper
insulation and exterior materials may make a big difference.

--Some green products don’t produce as
well as they claim, but others are time tested, like durable materials and
super insulation.

7) Driveway (low priority)

--Input from the fire marshal should be
sought.

--How will heavy things/deliveries be
made?

--The current plan is a walkway to the
building with parking reasonably nearby in order to protect the tree. If
another plan is desired, now is the time to say so. Do people want to be
able to drive to the front door, or will they bring their umbrella and walk
in the rain?

8) Fit in with Landscape (a la Olmsted
and Wright) (high priority)

--“fit” is in the eye of the beholder,
but the main idea is to settle into the landscape rather than rise up in a
tall and imposing manner.

9) Outside Door to Basement (low
priority)

--The basement is still being
discussed, but the thinking is that the items stored in the

basement, if there is one, shouldn’t be
so big and heavy that an outside door is needed.

--Using the basement for meeting space
wouldn’t be practical, due to the need for an elevator.

--What is the expected price of the
basement? Mr. O’Neal suggested $20/30 per square foot, or
$40,000-$60,000.

--The estimate from Fingerle (building
supply company) was $11,000.

--Does a basement provide other
benefits besides space, such as insulation?

--If you are putting in the footings
for a slab or crawl space, it doesn’t cost much more to add the walls for a
full basement.

--There are more requirements for a
commercial basement than residential.

--Can Mr. Wier give us a more accurate
estimate of the cost in this case?

--Use effects the cost—will it be just
mechanical, or more finished?

10) Windows (high priority)

--Security and energy efficiency are
major factors.

11) General Style (high
priority)

--The committee is open to whatever
style best suits the site and needs of the project.

Discussion then focused on whether it
is helpful to continue the effort to share ideas among the Trustees and the
committee regarding particular styles and features individuals thought were
important. While it was suggested that it was not very helpful since
specific knowledge may be lacking, it was generally thought that as a
parallel activity it could be beneficial. It was also noted that two story
designs aren’t especially helpful, and that limited time is a factor. The
committee has received written comments from many of the Trustees, and the
others agreed to send such comments to Mr. Lindstrom as soon as possible.
Mr. Lindstrom called the question, which was approved and ended
discussion.

MotionMs. Bogat moved that the “Process for Achieving
a Consensus on the Exterior Design Theme for the Building” as presented by
the Village Administration Center Committee be approved. Mr. Wilkes
seconded; the motion carried.

Discussion then focused on the sales
agreement offered to BHMC, and the response received. Atty. Reading
distributed a copy of the agreement in which BHMC Atty. Lloyd had underlined
certain portions. It was noted that BHMC is required by its By-Laws to
attach the restrictive covenants to any property it sells.Mr. Lindstrom left.

Ms. Laporte stated the consequences of
tabling the discussion:

--The topic would be on the agenda of
theApril 16, 2007Board of Trustees meeting

and a vote could be taken at that
time.

--Atty. Reading could consult further
with Atty. Lloyd about the concerns of the Trustees.

--Both Atty. Reading and Atty. Lloyd
will be present at theApril 16,
2007meeting.

MotionMr. Al-Awar moved to table further discussion of
the proposed sales agreement offered to Barton Hills Maintenance Corporation
until the April 16, 2007 Barton Hills Village Board of Trustees meeting. Mr.
Wilkes seconded; the motion carried.